Filed Date: June 3, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision to rescind the full-time telework accommodations of two employees of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) following the enforcement of the Trump Administration’s return to in-person work policy.
This putative class action was filed on June 3, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Acting Attorney General of the United States. Both plaintiffs were employees of the EOIR with disabilities who had been granted full-time telework as a reasonable accommodation under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. Both plaintiffs consistently received excellent performance reviews while working remotely. Following President Trump's January 20, 2025 “Return to In-Person Work Memorandum,” EOIR implemented a policy and practice of predetermining that telework is never an appropriate accommodation, and subsequently denied both plaintiffs’ renewal requests. Represented by both private and public counsel, the plaintiffs brought three counts under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act: one on behalf of a proposed class challenging the no-telework policy, and one for each of the two individually named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restoration of used leave, attorneys' fees, and a jury trial. The case was assigned to District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles and Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick.
On June 17, 2026, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking the immediate restoration of their full-time telework accommodations. The plaintiffs argued that they would be likely to succeed on the merits because, although they could perform the essential functions of their jobs with accommodations, EOIR refused to grant those accommodations and discriminated against them on the basis of disability. The plaintiffs further contended that EOIR failed to propose alternative accommodations, identify any legitimate issues with their medical documentation, or describe any undue hardship that granting the requested accommodations would impose. The plaintiffs also noted that they would face irreparable harm without the telework accommodation because returning to in-person work would pose an imminent and serious risk to both plaintiffs’ health.
On July 10, 2026, Judge Giles held a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the motion that same day. The defendants were ordered to immediately restore the plaintiffs’ full-time telework reasonable accommodation until a judgment is entered in this case.
As of July 17, 2026, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
(6/14/2026)
Kara Wilczynski (7/21/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73438118/parties/panian-v-blanche/
Carroll, Catherine Mary (Virginia)
Hill, Eve L (Virginia)
Wetzler, Lauren A. (Virginia)
Loftus, Meghan Elizabeth (Virginia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73438118/panian-v-blanche/
Last updated July 22, 2026, 3:12 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 3, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are two employees of the Executive Office of Immigration Review with disabilities who were denied renewal of telework accommodations.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
Federal
United States Department of Justice
Case Details
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Virginia 1:26-cv-01537
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Area:
Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc.)
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Case Summary of Panian v. Blanche, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48210/ (last updated 7/21/2026).